tattedupboy
Thank God I'm alive!
Guns as a means of 'population control' - The Advocate
Guns as a means of 'population control'
By William A. Collins
Article Launched: 11/16/2008 02:46:46 AM EST
The poor Chinese just don't get it. Look at the turmoil they've suffered from putting a limit on children. Their now-famous goal was to reduce the nation's alarming population growth. Here in the United States we've adopted a much simpler technique. We merely allow people to own guns.
And they do. Would you believe 40 percent of all households?
Wimpy old Connecticut only reports 18 percent. Goes along with all that brie and Chablis. Only five Nutmeggers per 100,000 die of gunshot wounds each year, a paltry half the national average. Louisiana has better results - they bump off 19 per 100,000. This is fortunate because since Katrina, the housing shortage there has been a bear.
Other jurisdictions take a less-permissive stance. They see advantages in population growth, and express annoyance when too many of their citizens suffer "lead poisoning." Washington, D.C., is one of these. It has banned handguns completely for 32 years. Nice try, but with its recent assertively conservative majority, the Supreme Court just chucked that law and granted plain folks the right to own weapons. Sighs of relief rose from the National Rifle Association and the funeral home industry.
Not that Washington had succeeded in becoming a sweet haven from violence. Guns are portable after all, and there were no control points at the borders. But at least it was a start. New York too has always been tough on illegal firearms. It regularly and successfully sues dealers throughout the South who supply weapons used in crimes in the Big Apple. For such dealers, bending the rules can be expensive, but the profits remain too juicy to pass up.
The Big Court, wallowing perhaps in a little frontier nostalgia, said it felt that Americans had the need of guns for hunting and self-defense. Well, sure. There's plenty of hunting in D.C., all right, but not the kind that goes with gathering. This hunting involves turf wars, busted drug deals and revenge. These in turn lead to the need for self-defense. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that the court no doubt had in mind.
Otherwise, its logic is hard to fathom. The United States is already one of the world's most violent nations, due in no small measure to its historic affection for handguns. The NRA and savvy weapons manufacturers provide the money and lobbyists to keep that love affair alive. And it all has precious little to do with hunting or self-defense. You don't hunt deer with a .38 Police Special, and you don't have time to take your pistol from its locked cabinet and load it when you run into trouble in the street.
No, the real stimuli for handgun ownership are machismo and profit. The profits are plain enough, heartily enjoyed right here in our own weapons-making state. The machismo is widespread in a land where SUVs are a preferred mode of transport. In many ways, America is still "Gunsmoke" country.
The actual shooters, however, turn out to be a far different sort of folk. They peddle drugs, and they run gangs. They pull triggers a lot. No, they don't have any pull in Congress, but they don't need to. They just ride the coattails of the machos and the manufacturers. For example, the House recently voted 266-152 to override many of D.C.'s local gun restrictions, though of course none of those lawmakers actually reside there. Rather, they were responding to enthusiasts back home.
You'll recall a crazy gun owner once put down President John F. Kennedy, and another nearly knocked off President Ronald Reagan. Thousands of lesser citizens die every year, sometimes 20 or 30 at a clip. I guess that's a small price to pay for our national fetish.
Guns as a means of 'population control'
By William A. Collins
Article Launched: 11/16/2008 02:46:46 AM EST
The poor Chinese just don't get it. Look at the turmoil they've suffered from putting a limit on children. Their now-famous goal was to reduce the nation's alarming population growth. Here in the United States we've adopted a much simpler technique. We merely allow people to own guns.
And they do. Would you believe 40 percent of all households?
Wimpy old Connecticut only reports 18 percent. Goes along with all that brie and Chablis. Only five Nutmeggers per 100,000 die of gunshot wounds each year, a paltry half the national average. Louisiana has better results - they bump off 19 per 100,000. This is fortunate because since Katrina, the housing shortage there has been a bear.
Other jurisdictions take a less-permissive stance. They see advantages in population growth, and express annoyance when too many of their citizens suffer "lead poisoning." Washington, D.C., is one of these. It has banned handguns completely for 32 years. Nice try, but with its recent assertively conservative majority, the Supreme Court just chucked that law and granted plain folks the right to own weapons. Sighs of relief rose from the National Rifle Association and the funeral home industry.
Not that Washington had succeeded in becoming a sweet haven from violence. Guns are portable after all, and there were no control points at the borders. But at least it was a start. New York too has always been tough on illegal firearms. It regularly and successfully sues dealers throughout the South who supply weapons used in crimes in the Big Apple. For such dealers, bending the rules can be expensive, but the profits remain too juicy to pass up.
The Big Court, wallowing perhaps in a little frontier nostalgia, said it felt that Americans had the need of guns for hunting and self-defense. Well, sure. There's plenty of hunting in D.C., all right, but not the kind that goes with gathering. This hunting involves turf wars, busted drug deals and revenge. These in turn lead to the need for self-defense. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that the court no doubt had in mind.
Otherwise, its logic is hard to fathom. The United States is already one of the world's most violent nations, due in no small measure to its historic affection for handguns. The NRA and savvy weapons manufacturers provide the money and lobbyists to keep that love affair alive. And it all has precious little to do with hunting or self-defense. You don't hunt deer with a .38 Police Special, and you don't have time to take your pistol from its locked cabinet and load it when you run into trouble in the street.
No, the real stimuli for handgun ownership are machismo and profit. The profits are plain enough, heartily enjoyed right here in our own weapons-making state. The machismo is widespread in a land where SUVs are a preferred mode of transport. In many ways, America is still "Gunsmoke" country.
The actual shooters, however, turn out to be a far different sort of folk. They peddle drugs, and they run gangs. They pull triggers a lot. No, they don't have any pull in Congress, but they don't need to. They just ride the coattails of the machos and the manufacturers. For example, the House recently voted 266-152 to override many of D.C.'s local gun restrictions, though of course none of those lawmakers actually reside there. Rather, they were responding to enthusiasts back home.
You'll recall a crazy gun owner once put down President John F. Kennedy, and another nearly knocked off President Ronald Reagan. Thousands of lesser citizens die every year, sometimes 20 or 30 at a clip. I guess that's a small price to pay for our national fetish.
leasantry: Dihydrogen monoxide causes (or contributes to) too many deaths each year. We should definitely ban this dangerous chemical, and penalize people for using it. :wacko:
